England is primarily responsible for bringing slavery to the US.

The term "White" in the United States revolves around being Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, and the mythology of White Supremacy in the United States features the idea of Anglo-Saxon purity.

Italians, Germans, Spaniards all faced discrimination, and all were excluded from this by racist groups particularly in the Reconstruction era (after the American Civil War).

My grandmother, who had German ancestry, was born around the turn of the 20th century. She talks about how she was beaten for using German words, she literally had German beaten out of her. They wanted to be Anglo-Saxon, because that's what it meant to be American.

Today, racists still say "This is America. We speak English!". That is no coincidence.

And that would be .. the mixture of Saxon tribes who mixed with others like the Jutes, the Frisians, and, of course, the Angles?

That's the point Walter.

The US founded from British colonies, and it was founded on the idea that British people were culturally and racially superior. The word "Anglo-Saxon" has always been a part of their mythology. You are correct, the idea of White purity, or even "White" has not logical basis.

And yet, the US was founded by British people who believed that the Anglo-Saxon race was superior. It is part of the mythology of the British Empire and the justification for colonization.

White Supremacists in the United States also inherited England's hatred of Catholics. The KKK and other historical racist groups were as violently opposed to Catholicism as they were to African-Americans.

yet britain disposed of slavery and "slave trade" a half century before the US did.. We hd slavry in the Nort an South during and after the Civil War.

England ended slavery in 1838. That was 25 years before the Emancipation Proclamation.

England also paid reparations....to the Slave owners... for the "loss of their property".

the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery ither in the North (De,Md,Ky)or South . You think the South obeyed the EP?

Interestingly enough, there was NEVER any law that recognized slavey an the slave trade as legal in Great Britain. A case 1772 set precedent in freeing slaves by law (Somerset case), and the Slave Trade ACt of 1803 began th legislative process. Th Emancipation Proclamation was only ment for Southern States (Who ignored it anyway) So , the whole thing is really an exercise in propaganda, and the northern slave permitting states just kept quiet. In 1982 we did a group art show of an en plein aire paintings show of slave barracks and cabins that existed in Pennsylvania . I also know of several places in the Southern NJ and mid Conn. states.
there were also several other attempts at fugitive slave acts, making it illegal to aid runaway slaves in the mid 1800's


History about slavery isnt as cut and dried as you seem to want.

In actuality the entire slave industry was a product of Arab Countries and coptic Christians in africa

How much of it was based on "racial" superiority and how much of it was just good old competitive nationalism and cultural pride?

The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Earlier, the Slave Trade Act 1807 made the purchase or ownership of slaves illegal within the British Empire, with the exception of "the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company", Ceylon and Saint Helena.

In England, because slavery had never been authorised by statute there (and Wales), Somerset v Stewart [(1772) 98 ER 499]) started the abolishing of slavery.

After France, which abolished slavery in 1794, the United Kingdom were, by the late eighteenth century, the biggest proponents of the abolition of slavery worldwide.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery in the USA on December 6, 1865.

what he said

1. I've been out of school for a very long time, so much of my history learning I have forgotten.
2. As far as I know, England is primarily responsible for bringing slavery to the U.S.
3. As I stated, being out of school for so long, I have forgotten much of my history learning.




1. Why would this shock you?
2. I believe I learned this in history when I was in school.




1. I disagree.
2. I don't believe that (liberals) are making any such arguments.




1. I disagree that (liberals) are doing (A)
2. And what does (A) have to do with (B)?
3. (B) may be true as its own separate statement while having nothing to do with (A)
4. Your argument has multiple fallacies.
5. One fallacy in your argument is your use of the word "because"
6. Another fallacy in your argument is making false assertions of the views of liberals
7. And yes, there are also several other fallacies within your argument.

England had 800,000 slaves on slave plantations in the Carribean and Africa in 1833. They paid the slave owners reparations for loss of property.

This is a tangent to the thesis of the thread. But, it was usually a bad thing to have brown skin on any country dominated by the British Empire.

Are you attempting to start a misleading false narrative?

Progressives should always be challenged when they try to call themselves liberals. Progressives are not liberals. Liberals care about civil liberties.

Other than that, Max's post is factually accurate, as is often the case.

Max was posting about the UK's horrible history regarding slavery, and leftist posters started saying that it was no big deal considering the history of slavery throughout the world.

Max started this thread to address that tangent.

1. What I see is Max asserting a false misleading narrative.
2. Oralloy, I don't put too much into labels.
3. Whatever label you choose to use is up to you.
4. I don't know of any liberals or progressives that are making the argument that the British Empire is not responsible for slavery.
5. That sounds like Max is trying to push a narrative.
6. The following is an insert I copied from Wikipedia.
7. Being that I've been out of school for a very long time, I have forgotten much of what I learned in school.
8. As far as I can remember, the information contained in Wikipedia is essentially what I was taught in school many many years ago.
9. I am not going to remember dates, years, and many of the details.
10. By the way, I am a liberal or if you prefer, progressive.



Wikipedia
Slavery in the United States was the legal institution of human chattel slavery, comprising the enslavement primarily of Africans and African Americans, that existed in the United States of America from its founding in 1776 until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Slavery was established throughout European colonization in the Americas. From early colonial days, it was practiced in Britain's colonies, including the Thirteen Colonies which formed the United States. Under the law, an enslaved person was treated as property and could be bought, sold, or given away. Slavery lasted in about half of U.S. states until 1865. As an economic system, slavery was largely replaced by sharecropping and convict leasing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

England is primarily responsible for bringing slavery to the US because, although the French and Spanish practiced slavery, England was the primary colonial power in North America. Much of the native death toll, aside from victims of smallpox and other diseases, came about because various tribes were allied with rival colonial powers.


This does not honestly describe what occurred in the original discussion. No one, liberal or otherwise, said that slavery was "no big deal".


I think it's misleading to blame it all on Britain as the US was an independent country when the bulk of the western expansion began and systematic efforts were made to wipe out the buffalo and exterminate the Plains tribes. Nor should England be blamed for the truly barbaric domestic slave trade after the US barred importation in 1808.


That happens with disappointing regularity. Now he'll probably accuse me of "defending England".

To the title of this thread... And... what's your point? So what?

The British people in British Colonies (this includes the US and Australia) saw indigenous people as subhuman. The decimation of the indeginous populations in the British Empire the 19th were truly barbaric in both nature and scope.

Spain had laws protecting indigenous populations starting in the 16th century. Spain is not without fault, but if you compare the genocide in former British Colonies like the US and Australia with the assimilation in Spanish colonies like Mexico and El Salvador, there is no equivalence.

The White people in the US in the 18th and 19th century, the people in power and the people forming White Supremacists groups were of British descent and stated that their goal is to preserve "Anglo-Saxon culture".

Again... what's your point?